everything and anything

Menu

Monthly Archives: July 2018

“Over the past few years, Israel’s ongoing military occupation of Palestinian territory and repeated invasions of the Gaza strip have triggered a fierce backlash against Israeli policies virtually everywhere in the world — except the United States. The Occupation of the American Mind takes an eye-opening look at this critical exception, zeroing in on pro-Israel public relations efforts within the U.S.”

“Narrated by Roger Waters and featuring leading observers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and U.S. media culture, the film explores how the Israeli government, the U.S. government, and the pro-Israel lobby have joined forces, often with very different motives, to shape American media coverage of the conflict in Israel’s favor. From the U.S.-based public relations campaigns that emerged in the 1980s to today, the film provides a sweeping analysis of Israel’s decades-long battle for the hearts, minds, and tax dollars of the American people in the face of widening international…

The New York Times has been waging a not-so-subtle war on Trump’s “Fake News” campaign with its full page messages, such as the one above. Or this one.

Clearly, this is a very thoughtful campaign by the Editors at the New York Times to discredit Trump’s war on facts and on the news media. Good for them.

We should be asking ourselves, however, why the NYT Editors chose to focus on “truth” and not “facts.” Some might argue that “truth” and “facts” are synonymous, there is no difference. In an ideal world, I might agree.

The wise ones know we don’t live in that utopia.

We live in a world where the media giants, the consolidated empires like the Sinclair Broadcast Group, massage and filter and repeat ad nauseum the “truth” they deem fit to share.

Few media sources disseminate outright lies and fabrications. There’s an element of “truth”…

People who have interacted with David Friedman say his diplomatic inexperience shows. But his defenders say he’s injected a dose of reality into the 70-year-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict. | Menahem Kahana/AFP/Getty Images

Last October, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, emailed State Department colleagues with a firm message: Don’t second-guess the Israeli military.

State Department officials had recently asked U.S. embassies in the Middle East to more carefully examine American military assistance to governments in the region, including Israel. The goal was to ensure the department wasn’t violating a law barring U.S. security aid to foreign military units that commit serious human rights abuses. Some Democrats in Congress have questioned whether Israel’s military — which receives an annual $3.1 billion from the United States, more than any other nation — might be guilty of human rights infractions against Palestinians.

Story Continued Below

Friedman dismissed the possibility. In the email to colleagues, he rejected the idea that his embassy needed to enhance its scrutiny of military aid, saying he did “not believe we should extend the new [guidelines] to Israel at this time.”

“Israel is a democracy whose army does not engage in gross violations of human rights,” Friedman wrote, adding that Israel “has a robust system of investigation and prosecution in the rare circumstance where misconduct occurs.” Besides, he added, “it would be against [U.S.] national interests” to take a step that could limit Israel’s access to military equipment – “especially in a time of war.”

Several months later, Israeli forces are under harsh international scrutiny for killing scores of Palestinians during border protests in the Gaza Strip. Friedman has rejected charges that Israel used excessive force; Israeli officials insist they acted with restraint against violent provocations.

Friedman’s email, part of a chain shown to POLITICO by a former State Department official familiar with the issue, offers a glimpse into the worldview of one of President Donald Trump’s most influential — and controversial — ambassadors. Along with other anecdotes about his tenure, it suggests that the blunt-spoken former Trump bankruptcy lawyer sees his host country, which he has long considered a second home, as virtually beyond reproach. It also underscores the stark pro-Israel tone of Trump’s foreign policy as the president works to devise a proposal for a long-elusive Middle East peace.

The most reliable politics newsletter.

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning — in your inbox.

EmailSign Up

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

It has been a busy spring for the 59-year-old Friedman. Last month, he attended the opening ceremony for the first U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, opened by Trump despite furious criticism from Palestinian officials. Sources say Friedman played a key role in persuading Trump to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocate America’s embassy there from Tel Aviv.

Friedman was in Washington this past week for White House meetings about an Israeli-Palestinian peace plan that Trump’s team may unveil this summer, and he is expected to be joined in Israel next week by Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, and another top Trump aide, Jason Greenblatt, for talks with Israeli officials.

To supporters, Friedman is a valuable emissary to a welcoming Israeli government. “Ambassador Friedman has done a terrific job and is widely respected across the political spectrum in Israel,” said Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the United States. “Israel’s leaders appreciate his close relationship with President Trump and know that he speaks to and for the president in a way that perhaps none of his predecessors did.”

“He’s not a career diplomat. He doesn’t fall into the trap of diplomatic speak,” said Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. “The only thing you can accuse David Friedman of is speaking truthfully. If that offends people, so be it.”

But critics say Friedman champions a right-wing agenda that doesn’t reflect broad opinion in either the United States or Israel itself. And they warn that his hard line toward the Palestinians and reflexive defense of Israel’s security forces is making a peace agreement harder than ever to achieve.

“We could never really imagine that Mr. Friedman could play any positive role,” said Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority.

A “direct line” to Trump

State Department officials who work on Israeli-Palestinian issues declined to comment for this story. But POLITICO spoke to nearly a dozen former State Department officials, congressional staffers and human rights activists, among others, for a sense of how Friedman operates.

Friedman grew up in an Orthodox Jewish community in Long Island, earned a law degree from New York University and became a bankruptcy law expert who represented Trump when his Atlantic City casinos went under. He has been a fervent Israel backer for decades, and has raised money to support Israeli settlers in territories Palestinians claim for a future state.

Friedman started representing Trump in the early 2000s, including handling cases involving the future president’s troubled Atlantic City casinos. Friedman had no prior diplomatic experience when Trump tapped him to become ambassador to one of America’s closest allies. His close relationship with Trump has given him unusual power — as well as autonomy, allowing him to sidestep traditional diplomatic channels, of which he is suspicious, and communicate directly with Kushner and the president.

“Based on what he wrote before he was in government, he seemed to view the State Department as sort of the enemy because he deemed its diplomats as insufficiently supportive of Israel,” a former senior State Department official said. “But he also has no need for it. He has a direct line to the president of the United States.”

People who have interacted with Friedman say his diplomatic inexperience shows. Shortly before his official arrival in Israel last year, State Department officials briefed Friedman about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, a Palestinian territory under an Israeli blockade and controlled by the militant group Hamas.

According to the former State Department official familiar with the issue, at one point in the briefing Friedman said: “I don’t understand. The people in Gaza – they’re basically Egyptians. Why doesn’t Egypt take them back?” A briefer informed him that most of Gaza’s residents were refugees or descended from refugees who had lived in what is now Israel. (Friedman denied making the comment to The New Yorker, which recently reported the same incident. A State Department spokesperson told POLITICO the anecdote is false.)

Friedman has also questioned U.S. intelligence assessments about Palestinian leaders’ activities. In one instance last year, he said that Israeli officials had told him that U.S. intelligence officials knew that Palestinian leaders had asked the International Criminal Court to investigate Israel, which rejects the court’s jurisdiction. Under U.S. law, that could mean the Palestinians would have to close their office in Washington. U.S. officials told Friedman that American intelligence had not detected any relevant unpublicized Palestinian contact with the ICC at that point. In an email, Friedman objected to that conclusion — puzzling officials who wondered why he was taking the word of the Israelis over the Americans, according to the former State Department official.

A State Department spokesperson denied this incident. The department also denied POLITICO’s request to interview Friedman.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in September gave a speech to the United Nations calling on the ICC to investigate Israel, but after much debate the Palestinians were allowed to keep their office open. Last month, Palestinian leaders submitted a document to the court asking it to investigate.

Friedman also has insisted that the State Department stop using the term “occupied territories” to refer to the West Bank and Gaza, an approach the department adopted in its latest human rights report.

After Friedman found himself on the winning side of the debate about whether to relocate the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem — his ostensible boss, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, had opposed the move — he managed a second win. Tillerson insisted that moving the embassy could take several years. But Friedman successfully pushed Trump to designate an existing U.S. facility in Jerusalem as the embassy, former State Department officials said.

The dedication took place in mid-May; a permanent site is expected to take up to a decade to build.

‘Keep your mouths shut’

The May 14 embassy dedication ceremony, attended by Kushner and his wife, Ivanka, the president’s daughter, was a heady day for Friedman, but it was marred by some of the worst violence between Israel and the Palestinians in several years.

A series of protests by Palestinians along the Gaza border crescendoed that day — with the encouragement of Hamas. Israeli security forces killed more than 60 protesters as U.S. and Israeli officials celebrated at the new embassy. Since late March, Israeli forces have killed more than 100 protesters in Gaza, while wounding thousands more, according to Human Rights Watch.

In the weeks afterward, as rights groups denounced what they called a disproportionate show of force, Friedman lashed out at reporters questioning Israel’s response, telling them they failed to understand the issue and to “keep your mouths shut until you figure it out.”

The burst of violence came several months after Friedman dismissed the need to enhance vetting of U.S. military aid to Israel.

The vetting issue involves U.S. laws authored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that are designed to ensure that U.S. weapons, training, funding and other aid does not support foreign military units found to have committed “gross violations of human rights,” which can include torture, rape and extrajudicial killings.

Activists have long complained that while the State Department applies careful screening to resources used to train foreign military units, other forms of aid, such as transferred equipment, are less closely vetted. The problem is that training is just a small slice of U.S. military aid to foreign countries. One recent State Department reportlisted the amount of money the U.S. spent on training Israeli soldiers as less than $2 million a year, next to nothing compared to the $3.1 billion America sends to Israel annually. Experts say such small amounts line up with what they’ve found in studying the Leahy laws.

Several lawyers, activists, former State officials and others reached by POLITICO could not recall a single instance of the U.S. withholding any sort of assistance from an Israeli unit for reasons related to human rights infractions. But Leahy and other Democrats in Congress have questioned whether the U.S. scrutiny has been sufficient, including in a 2016 letter to then-Secretary of State John Kerry.

The issue came to a head inside State last year after the department’s inspector general released a review of by the bureau overseeing the Middle East and determined that American embassies in the region were not sufficiently tracking whether the disbursement of U.S. military aid was meeting the Leahy laws’ requirements.

Middle Eastern nations receive a huge chunk of U.S. foreign military assistance, most of it going to Israel and Egypt. Israel will soon be receiving hundreds of millions of dollars more each year under a 10-year agreement reached under former President Barack Obama.

The internal State Department review noted that the Government Accountability Office had found similar problems in a previous report focused on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt. The inspector general recommended that all the embassies in the region implement better vetting procedures to address “potential weaknesses.”

In his email, Friedman insisted that the existing vetting process in Israel was fine. “My understanding is that nothing is broken that requires a repair,” he wrote.

Friedman also questioned the very basis of the new assessments, which he cited as the GAO report on the U.S. mission in Egypt, instead of the broader inspector general’s report.

“Post disagrees with the assessment that the Department should proactively address Israel based on GAO criticism of procedures in Egypt,” Friedman wrote. “We cannot and should not assume that GAO intended to apply the same criticism to Tel Aviv. If and when they do criticize Embassy Tel Aviv for these issues, it would be more appropriate to react at that time.”

The former State Department official familiar with the issue said Friedman persevered and that no new guidelines applying to Israel were implemented. The State Department did not answer repeated questions about which embassies in the region adopted new vetting procedures and which ones did not.

In a statement to POLITICO, Leahy said the laws he authored “do not distinguish between democracies, autocracies or other governments, nor do they depend on whether a country is in the midst of an armed conflict or at peace.”

“What matters is whether a unit of a foreign security force has committed a heinous crime, like shooting an unarmed civilian or raping a prisoner, and whether the foreign government is bringing the responsible members of the unit to justice,” Leahy added. “The alternative is to turn a blind eye to atrocities committed by foreign units trained and equipped by the United States.”

This week, Human Rights Watch declared that the killings of Palestinians in Gaza by Israeli security forces “may amount to war crimes.” Among the dead was a young Palestinian medic. Rights activists fear that no Israeli troops would face discipline, pointing to reports which suggest that rarely happens.

Israeli officials vehemently defend their troops and justice system. They note that Palestinian protesters have thrown explosive devices, rocks and other items at soldiers. Hamas has also said many of those killed were its members.

While it did not respond to many of POLITICO’s questions, the State Department insisted nothing was unusual about its application of the Leahy laws to Israel.

“The State Department continues to apply the Leahy Law across the board, including in Israel, as it has for years,” a spokesman said in a written statement. (The two laws are often spoken of as one.) “There has been no change to our procedures. Ambassador Friedman has not instructed anyone to ignore the Leahy Law, nor has he asked for any changes be made to how the law is implemented.”

Partisan ideologue or “nuanced” diplomat?

Friedman’s defenders say he is aware of the complexity of the issues facing him, but that he’s injected a dose of reality into the 70-year-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

They argue that some of his most inflammatory remarks have been taken out of context — including his recent claim to an Israeli newspaper that there is “no question Republicans support Israel more than Democrats.” In remarks before he became ambassador, Friedman also likened liberal American Jewish activists to so-called kapos, or Jews who assisted Nazi concentration camp guards. (He later apologized.)

“If you look at the serious speeches that he’s delivered, at different conferences or different events, they are very nuanced,” said Nathan Diament, executive director for public policy with the Orthodox Union, an umbrella group of Orthodox Jewish congregations. “To the degree that some critics want to portray him as a one-dimensional right-wing ideologue, that’s not reflected in how he’s addressed policy issues as ambassador.”

Friedman has backed efforts to boost the Palestinian economy, Diament noted. But Palestinian leaders say Friedman has done little to earn their trust. Erekat, the Palestinian Authority negotiator, said that in a meeting with Friedman, the ambassador “tried to convince us that we could not do anything regarding Israel’s power.”

The Trump administration plans to press forth with its peace proposal with or without Palestinian participation, however. Kushner and Greenblatt will visit Saudi Arabia and Egypt as well as Israel next week to discuss their peace proposal.

According to a White House National Security Council spokesman, the American officials “are not going to meet Palestinian officials in Ramallah because the Palestinian leadership made it clear they don’t want to meet the peace team.”

The spokesman added, however, that “if the Palestinian leadership wants to meet, Kushner and Greenblatt are ready to meet.”

Special Projects

Dr. Brian O’Leary Alien Contact

Dr. Brian O’Leary, on 18th September 1994 made the following declarations publicly at the International Forum on New Science in Fort Collins, Colorado. Dr O’Leary said that “For nearly 50 years, the secrecy apparatus within the United States Government has kept from the public UFO and alien contact information.” He flatly stated that. “We have contact with alien cultures…” As for the non-disclosure of these facts, Dr O’Leary said, “The suppression of UFO and other extraterrestrial intelligence information for at least 47 years is probably being orchestrated by an elite band of men in the CIA, NSA, DIA and their like. This small group appears able to keep these already-hard-to-believe secrets very well. Those who have investigated this hydra-headed beast believe that the Cosmic Watergate of UFO, alien, mind-control, genetic engineering, free-energy, anti-gravity propulsion and other secrets will make Watergate or Iran-Gate…appear to be kindergarten exercises.”
Brian O’Leary – NASA Astronaut

Alien Worlds and the Fate of Earth

It is estimated there are millions if not billions of exoplanets. Many of these planets are likely to have various kinds of alien life. Adam Frank deserves our gratitude for condensing so much fascinating material into the ‘Light of the Stars, Alien Worlds and the Fate of Earth,’ this highly readable book. Adam ably picks up where Carl Sagan left off, Intelligent life does not necessarily mean it will succeed. His book describes the emerging science of astrobiology very clear, succinct, and entertaining.”,

We are just one of almost countless planets in the Universe, and it’s likely that many of those planets hosted technologically advanced alien civilizations which may have faced the same challenges we’re facing today. Astrophysicist and NPR commentator Adam Frank tells of his latest research on the existence and trajectories of alien civilizations and what they may teach us about our own. He described science as “constrained imagination,” and discusses the famous Drake equation, which was formulated to give us an idea of the possibility of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations that may have reached an age of technological sophistication. Frank also speculated on the possibility of an earlier Earth civilization, which may have existed 10 to 100 million years ago, and would leave very little trace of itself after that amount of time.

Frank also discussed the record of Earth’s climate and the scientific consensus that temperatures on the planet have remained fairly constant for at least 10,000 years, and added that “we would have to be wrong” about the effects of the sun on climate change for it to be a factor in any warming or cooling trends. Frank also used the example of Easter Island, and the depletion of natural resources over a few hundred years and how this can be scaled up to a planetary level. He concluded that “climate change shows how powerful how we’ve become” as a technological species.

Astrophysicist Adam Frank is a leading expert on the final stages of evolution for stars like the sun, and his computational research group at the University of Rochester has developed advanced supercomputer tools for studying how stars form and how they die. A self-described “evangelist of science,” he is also committed to showing others the beauty and power of science, and exploring the proper context of science in culture.

Editors Note: An advanced civilization with its star dying would need to find a newer planet with a viable Sun such as Earth. This is likely responsible for some of the craft we are seeing in our skies.

July 03, 2018 “Information Clearing House” – I have just spent a couple of days in New York City. Returning to Virginia on Wednesday morning, I had a somewhat strange experience. I cleared through my emails before leaving the hotel and also read through a number of the featured news articles. One, in particular, caught my eye. It described how the Democratic Party primary in Queens New York had returned a startling result. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won over mainstream incumbent Joe Crowley, signaling that not everyone in the Democratic Party is buying into the Clinton model of good governance by big donors and powerful interest groups. Many want change and even a radical departure from the political game whereby media savvy pressure groups and narrow constituencies are pandered to to create a governing majority.

One paragraph in particular in the article I read was highly suggestive, the claim that Ocasio-Cortez had been strongly opposed to the Israelis’ routine slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, which has by now become of such little import that it is not even reported any more in the U.S. media. She is also allegedly a supporter of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement (BDS), which pressures Israel to end its theft and occupation of Palestinian land. The article expressed some surprise that anyone in New York City would dare to say anything unpleasant about Israel and still expect to get elected.

This is what Ocasio-Cortez, who called the shooting of more than 130 Gazans a “massacre,” actually said and wrote:

“No state or entity is absolved of mass shootings of protesters. There is no justification. Palestinian people deserve basic human dignity, as anyone else. Democrats can’t be silent about this anymore. I think I was primarily compelled [to speak out] on moral grounds because I could only imagine if 60 people were shot and killed in Ferguson. Or if 60 people were shot and killed in the West Virginia teachers’ strikes. The idea that we are not supposed to talk about people dying when they are engaging in political expression just really moved me.”

Five hours later, when I arrived home in Virginia I went to pull upthe article I had read in the morning to possibly use it in a piece of my own and was somewhat surprised to discover that the bit about Israel had been excised from the text. It was clearly yet another example of how the media self-censors when there is anything negative to say about Israel and it underlines the significance of the emergence of recent international media reporting in The Guardianand elsewhere regarding how Jewish billionaire Sheldon Adelson largely dictates U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. That means that the conspiracy of silence over Israel’s manipulation of the United States government is beginning to break down and journalists have become bold enough to challenge what occurs when pro-Israel Jews obtain real power over the political process. Adelson, for what it’s worth, wants war with Iran and has even suggested detonating a nuclear device on its soil to “send a message.”

I personally would have liked to see Ocasio-Cortez go farther, a lot farther. Israel is a place where conventional morality has been replaced by a theocratically and culturally driven sense of entitlement which has meant that anything goes when it comes to the treatment of inferior Christian and Muslim Arabs. It also means that the United States is being played for a patsy by people who believe themselves to be superior in every way to Americans.

The question of the relationship with Israel comes at a time when everyone in America, so it seems, is concerned about children being separated from their parents who have illegally crossed the border from Mexico into the United States. The concern is legitimate given the coarse and sometimes violent justifications coming out of the White House, but it’s a funny thing that Israeli abuse and even killing of Arab children is not met with the same opprobrium. When a Jewish fanatic/Israel settler kills Palestinian children and is protected by his government in so doing, where is the outrage in the U.S. media? Settlers and soldiers kill Palestinians, young and old, with impunity and are almost never punished. They destroy their orchards and livestock to eliminate their livelihoods to drive them out. They bulldoze their homes and villages. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency does none of that and is yet subject to nonstop abuse in the mainstream media, so what about Israel?

A recent story illustrates just how horrible the Israelis can be without any pushback whatsoever coming from Washington objecting to their behavior. As the United States is the only force that can in any way compel Israel to come to its senses and chooses not to do so, that makes U.S. policymakers and by extension the American people complicit in Israel’s crimes.

The particularly horrible recent account that I am referring to describes how fanatical Jewish settlers burned alive a Palestinian family on the West Bank, including a baby, and then celebrated the deaths while taunting the victims’ surviving family when they subsequently appeared in court. The story was covered in Israel and Europe but insofar as I could determine did not appear in any detail in the U.S. mainstream media.

Israeli Jewish settlers carried out their shameful deed outside a court in the city of Lod, chanting “’Ali was burned, where is Ali? There is no Ali. Ali is burned. On the fire. Ali is on the grill!” referring to the 18-month old baby Ali Dawabsheh, who was burnt alive in 2015 by Jewish settlers hurling Molotov cocktails into a house in the West Bank town of Duma. Ali’s mother Riham and father Saad also died of their burns and were included in the chanting “Where is Ali? Where is Riham? Where is Saad? It’s too bad Ahmed didn’t burn as well.” Five year-old Ahmed, who alone survived the attack with severe burns, will have scars for the rest of his life.

The settlers were taunting Ali’s grandfather Hussein Dawabsheh, who accompanied Ahmed, at a preliminary hearing where the courtindicted a man who confessed to the murders and a minor who acted as an accomplice. A video of the chanting shows Israeli policemen standing by and doing nothing. The court appearance also revealed that there have been another Molotov cocktail attack by settlers on another Dawabsheh family house in May that may have been an attempt to silence testimony relating to the first attack. Fortunately, the family managed to escape.

And by all accounts this outrage was not the first incident in which the burning of the Palestinian baby was celebrated. A December 15thwedding video showed settlers engaged in an uproarious party that featured dances with Molotov cocktails and waving knives and guns. A photo of baby Ali was on display and was repeatedly stabbed. A year later, 13 people from what became known as the “murder wedding” were indicted for incitement to terrorism, but as of today no one has actually been punished. Israelis who kill Arabs are rarely indicted or tried. If it is a soldier or policeman that is involved, which occurs all too often, the penalty is frequently either nothing at all a slap on the wrist. Indeed, the snipers who fired on Gazans recently were actually ordered to shoot the unarmed civilians and directed to take out anyone who appeared to be a “leader,” which included medical personnel.

The Trump Administration could, of course, stop the Israeli brutality if it chooses to do so, but it does not think Benjamin Netanyahu’s crimes against humanity are on the agenda. Nor did Clinton, Bush and Obama dare to confront the power of Israel’s lobby, though Obama tried a little pushback in a feeble way.

Someone in Washington should be asking why the United States should be fighting unnecessary wars and becoming an international pariah defending a country and people that believe they are “chosen” by God? One can only hope that the shift in perceptions on the Middle East by liberal Democrats like Ocasio-Cortez has some legs and will lead to some real change in U.S. foreign policy. To succeed the liberal Democrats will need to push against some formidable obstacles within their own party, most notably the Clinton wing and people like Senator Chuck Schumer, Minority leader in the Senate, who describes himself as Israel’s “shomer” or defender in the Upper House. Perhaps someone on the New York Times editorial board should publicly suggest to Schumer that he go and run for office in Israel since he seems to prefer it to the country that has made him rich and powerful. But of course, the Times and all the other mainstream media, which is responsible for what we are not allowed to know about Israel and its American mouthpieces, will never entertain that suggestion or anything like it.

An example of audience segmenting, according to a psychographics methodology. I wonder what category data analysts think that I fit into. Whichever it is, they most definitely got me wrong. Note the dehumanising labels (objectification: “the struggler, “the resigned”) and stereotyping. I struggle on little income, don’t consume junk food or very much alcohol, though I have an occasional glass of red wine with a meal. I’m not aimless, I have academic qualifications, but no physical skills as I am disabled because of an illness. I am certainly someone who fits with “the reformer” description but I am not “at the leading edge of society”.

Psychology has always been used as a tool for political manipulation, particularly in authoritarian regimes. Psychographics uses ‘personality type’ to predict behaviour. The data is gathered from online activity, surveys and other sources. It is then analysed and segmented. Strategic communications are then tailored to fit with…